Supreme Court Term 2025-2026
We’re breaking down the cases we've asked the court to consider this term.
Latest Case Updates
Ongoing
Updated January 9, 2026
Ongoing
Updated December 10, 2025
Ongoing
Updated December 10, 2025
Ongoing
Updated November 22, 2025
Featured
Court Case
Dec 2025
National Security
Human Rights
FOIA Case Seeking the Trump Administration’s Legal Justification for Deadly Boat Strikes
The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) authored a legal opinion that reportedly claims to justify the Trump administration’s illegal lethal strikes on civilians in boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Media reports indicate that, in addition to claiming that the strikes are lawful acts in an alleged “armed conflict” with unspecified drug cartels, the OLC opinion also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in the strikes from future criminal prosecution. Because the public deserves to know how our government is justifying these illegal strikes, and why they think the people who carried them out should not be held accountable, the ACLU is seeking immediate release of the OLC legal opinion and related documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Voting Rights
Racial Justice
Allen v. Milligan
Whether Alabama’s congressional districts violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they discriminate against Black voters. We succeeded in winning a new map for 2024 elections which, for the first time, has two congressional district that provide Black voters a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing despite multiple attempts by Alabama to stop us at the Supreme Court. Despite this win, Alabama is still defending its discriminatory map, and a trial was held in February 2025 to determine the map for the rest of the decade.
In May 2025, a federal court ruled that Alabama's 2023 congressional map both violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and was enacted by the Alabama Legislature with racially discriminatory intent.
Washington, D.C.
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump
On March 25, 2025, in a sweeping and unprecedented Executive Order, President Trump attempted to usurp the power to regulate federal elections from Congress and the States. Among other things, the Executive Order directs the Election Assistance Commission—an agency that Congress specifically established to be bipartisan and independent—to require voters to show a passport or other citizenship documentation in order to register to vote in federal elections. If implemented, the Executive Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible Americans to register and vote and upend the administration of federal elections.
On behalf of leading voter registration organizations and advocacy organizations, the ACLU and co-counsel filed a lawsuit to block the Executive Order as an unconstitutional power grab.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
State Board of Election Commissioners v. Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP
Mississippi has a growing Black population, which is already the largest Black population percentage of any state in the country. Yet. Black Mississippians continue to be significantly under-represented in the state legislature, as Mississippi’s latest districting maps fail to reflect the reality of the state’s changing demographics. During the 2022 redistricting process, the Mississippi legislature refused to create any new districts where Black voters have a chance to elect their preferred representative. The current district lines therefore dilute the voting power of Black Mississippians and continue to deprive them of political representation that is responsive to their needs and concerns, including severe disparities in education and healthcare.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Voting Rights
Louisiana v. Callais (Callais v. Landry)
Whether the congressional map Louisiana adopted to cure a Voting Rights Act violation in Robinson v. Ardoin is itself unlawful as a gerrymander.
Missouri
Sep 2025
Voting Rights
Wise v. Missouri
In unprecedented fashion, the State of Missouri has redrawn the district lines used for electing members of Congress for a second time this decade. These new district lines are gerrymandered and will harm political representation for all Missourians, particularly Black residents in Kansas City, who have been divided along racial lines.
Mississippi
Aug 2025
Voting Rights
White v. Mississippi State Board of Elections
District lines used to elect Mississippi’s Supreme Court have gone unchanged for more than 35 years. We’re suing because this dilutes the voting strength of Black residents in state Supreme Court elections, in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
Louisiana
Aug 2025
Voting Rights
Nairne v. Landry
Nairne v. Landry poses a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Louisiana’s House and Senate legislative maps on behalf of plaintiff Black voters and Black voters across the state.
Ohio
Jul 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the law firm WilmerHale, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio, Preterm-Cleveland, Women’s Med Group Professional Corporation, Dr. Sharon Liner, and Julia Quinn, MSN, BSN, amended a complaint in an existing lawsuit against a ban on telehealth medication abortion services to bring new claims under the Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment, including additional challenges to other laws in Ohio that restrict access to medication abortion in the state.
All Cases
1,651 Court Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Voting Rights
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (Amicus)
Congressman Michael Bost brought suit trying to prevent Illinois from counting mail ballots that are voted by election day and received within the following fourteen days, consistent with Illinois law. The Seventh Circuit ruled that Congressman Bost lacks standing to sue. Bost sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court on the question whether he has standing as a federal candidate to bring his lawsuit and have it decided on the merits.
While the ACLU strongly opposes Congressman Bost’s position on the merits and has repeatedly defended similar state laws from challenge, the rules that determine whether Bost has standing to even bring his anti-voter lawsuit also apply to civil rights groups when they bring suit to expand or protect the rights of voters.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Voting Rights
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (Amicus)
Congressman Michael Bost brought suit trying to prevent Illinois from counting mail ballots that are voted by election day and received within the following fourteen days, consistent with Illinois law. The Seventh Circuit ruled that Congressman Bost lacks standing to sue. Bost sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court on the question whether he has standing as a federal candidate to bring his lawsuit and have it decided on the merits.
While the ACLU strongly opposes Congressman Bost’s position on the merits and has repeatedly defended similar state laws from challenge, the rules that determine whether Bost has standing to even bring his anti-voter lawsuit also apply to civil rights groups when they bring suit to expand or protect the rights of voters.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Capital Punishment
Anthony Wainwright v. Governor of Florida et al.
Anthony Wainwright, who was facing imminent execution in Florida, attempted to file a petition in the Florida Supreme Court with the assistance of his pro bono counsel of choice. The court dismissed the petition only because his court-appointed refused to file it, despite the fact that Mr. Wainwright was entitled to do so under Florida law. He asked the United States Supreme Court to review his case to decide whether the Florida court’s action deprived him his constitutional right of access to the courts and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The United States Supreme Court refused to review the case, and the State of Florida executed him on June 10, 2025.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Capital Punishment
Anthony Wainwright v. Governor of Florida et al.
Anthony Wainwright, who was facing imminent execution in Florida, attempted to file a petition in the Florida Supreme Court with the assistance of his pro bono counsel of choice. The court dismissed the petition only because his court-appointed refused to file it, despite the fact that Mr. Wainwright was entitled to do so under Florida law. He asked the United States Supreme Court to review his case to decide whether the Florida court’s action deprived him his constitutional right of access to the courts and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The United States Supreme Court refused to review the case, and the State of Florida executed him on June 10, 2025.
North Dakota
Jul 2025
Voting Rights
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (Amicus)
In Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, the 8th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to rule that private plaintiffs cannot enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In doing so, the court left open the question whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 through an alternative civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this case, a divided panel on the 8th Circuit has held that plaintiffs may not use Section 1983, either. If the holding stands, Section 2 of the VRA will be functionally out of reach for voters across the 8th Circuit in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. On behalf of the NAACP Arkansas State Conference and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the ACLU and ACLU of Arkansas has filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs' request that the full Eighth Circuit rehear and correct this decision.
Explore case
North Dakota
Jul 2025
Voting Rights
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (Amicus)
In Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, the 8th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to rule that private plaintiffs cannot enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In doing so, the court left open the question whether private plaintiffs could enforce Section 2 through an alternative civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this case, a divided panel on the 8th Circuit has held that plaintiffs may not use Section 1983, either. If the holding stands, Section 2 of the VRA will be functionally out of reach for voters across the 8th Circuit in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. On behalf of the NAACP Arkansas State Conference and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the ACLU and ACLU of Arkansas has filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs' request that the full Eighth Circuit rehear and correct this decision.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Religious Liberty
Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Comm'n
On March 5, 2025, the ACLU and its allies filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the First Amendment does not prohibit states from offering limited, categorical religious exemptions or from distinguishing between religious and nonreligious entities and activities in assessing the applicability of exemptions.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Religious Liberty
Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Comm'n
On March 5, 2025, the ACLU and its allies filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the First Amendment does not prohibit states from offering limited, categorical religious exemptions or from distinguishing between religious and nonreligious entities and activities in assessing the applicability of exemptions.
Alabama
Jul 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health
A group of midwives and doctors filed a lawsuit in state court challenging actions by the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), which imposed a de facto ban on freestanding birth centers throughout Alabama. Birth centers provide midwifery care to low-risk pregnant patients, a model of care that is proven to be safe and beneficial to patients. Despite that, ADPH took actions that forced one center to abruptly shut down in 2023 despite a perfect safety record, and then passed onerous regulations that would require birth centers to meet hospital-like standards, preventing birth centers from operating in the state. After hearing oral argument in late September 2023, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction on September 30, 2023, preventing ADPH from refusing to timely license freestanding birth centers that comply with nationally-recognized safety standards for birth centers while litigation continues.
In May 2025, the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court permanently blocking the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) from regulating freestanding birth centers like hospitals and imposing onerous licensing rules that would have made it effectively impossible for these centers to provide evidence-based midwifery care in the state. The ruling ensures that plaintiffs Oasis Family Birthing Center in Birmingham and Alabama Birth Center in Huntsville, which have been safely operating for the past year, may continue providing midwifery care to pregnant Alabamians.
Explore case
Alabama
Jul 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health
A group of midwives and doctors filed a lawsuit in state court challenging actions by the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), which imposed a de facto ban on freestanding birth centers throughout Alabama. Birth centers provide midwifery care to low-risk pregnant patients, a model of care that is proven to be safe and beneficial to patients. Despite that, ADPH took actions that forced one center to abruptly shut down in 2023 despite a perfect safety record, and then passed onerous regulations that would require birth centers to meet hospital-like standards, preventing birth centers from operating in the state. After hearing oral argument in late September 2023, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction on September 30, 2023, preventing ADPH from refusing to timely license freestanding birth centers that comply with nationally-recognized safety standards for birth centers while litigation continues.
In May 2025, the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court permanently blocking the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) from regulating freestanding birth centers like hospitals and imposing onerous licensing rules that would have made it effectively impossible for these centers to provide evidence-based midwifery care in the state. The ruling ensures that plaintiffs Oasis Family Birthing Center in Birmingham and Alabama Birth Center in Huntsville, which have been safely operating for the past year, may continue providing midwifery care to pregnant Alabamians.